The names of two of these ships are known canonical. The NCC-1831 is the registry of the USS Intrepid. The NCC-1701 is registry of the USS Enterprise. Encyclopedia informs us that the registry NCC-1700 is that of the USS Constitution. This data is from "Space Seed", where Khan is accessing a computer screen. (By the way, for those who have Star Trek on DVD and especially "Space Seed", is the screen readable? If so, does the screen name the USS Constitution and give her a registry of NCC-1700?)

In computers, one can do a list by A->Z or Z->A. I suppose that one can assume that the computers of Star Trek use similiar lists. If true, than the chart in "Court Martial" can be read Z->A with the USS Constitution being the first named starship and the USS Lexington being the last named starship.
So, the chart could be read as follows
NCC-1709 (USS Lexington)
NCC-1831 (USS Intrepid)
NCC-1703 (USS Hood)
NCC-1672 (USS Exeter)
NCC-1664 (USS Excalibur)
NCC-1697 (USS Essex)
NCC-1701 (USS Enterprise)
NCC-1718
NCC-1685
NCC-1700 (USS Constitution)

This raises a question for me. Why is the USS Defiant in the episode "The Tholian Web" not given one of the unassigned registries? These two registries lie between USS Constitution and USS Enterprise, a space that the USS Defiant could fit comfortably in. (Though I have suggested in the past that the USS Carolina be given one of the registries from this episode, the canonical evidence supports the contention that the USS Carolina is not present at M-11, the location of Starbase 11. For those curious about where I got the name of the planet, go to the scene set in the Starbase lounge. There is a sign on the bar that says "Starbase Club at M-11", or words to that effect.)

Another question. In The Making of Star Trek, the name Essex is suggested by D.C. Fontana as a possibility. This possibility is rejected and the list given is the USS Constellation, USS Constitution, USS Enterprise, USS Excalibur, USS Exeter, USS Farrugut, USS Hood, USS Intrepid, USS Kongo, USS Lexington, USS Potemkin, USS Republic, USS Valiant, and USS Yorktown. Though the writer said that the USS Farrugut is presumed destroyed, there is no canonical evidence that says exactly this. The starship Farrugut in the episode "Obsession" is described as being attacked and losing approximately 50% of her crew. The possibility exists that the USS Farrugut returned to Federation space under the command of the first officer. My quetion is, couldn't the list have gone something like this-
NCC-1709 (USS Lexington)
NCC-1831 (USS Intrepid)
NCC-1703 (USS Hood)
NCC-1672 (USS Farrugut)
NCC-1664 (USS Exeter)
NCC-1697 (USS Excalibur)
NCC-1701 (USS Enterprise)
NCC-1718
NCC-1685
NCC-1700 (USS Constitution)

What reason existed for Mr. Okuda or Mr. Jein to add a name, the Essex, to the existing roster of Constitution Class starships?

And did Mr. Okuda believed that the USS Farrugut had been destroyed by the cloud creature?

Does Mr. Okuda know of the list from the above named book? I have serious reservations wheter or not Mr. Okuda actually read the book, for he expresses ignorance about the definition of Starship Class as used by the writers of the first series. (rf. encyclopedia) This definition is given in the chapter "U.S.S. Enterprise". Further, the USS Constitution is never identified as the class starship (aka prototype starship) in the book. When describing the Constitution Class starships, the writer uses the phrase "Enterprise-type". This idea that the USS Constitution is identified as class starship occured in 1975-Franz Joseph's Technical Manuel, and later canonically recognized, in historical chronology, by the episode "The Naked Now" which debuted in 1987. And Franz Joseph's book is the first Star Trek book to the best of my knowledge that has the class ship with the lowest registry in a class and all other ships, the sisters as I like to call them, having higher registries.

I am excited to hear that "Friday's Child" and "The Doomsday Machine" will be on DVD this fall. With the information from these episodes, as well as others, I will be arguing my case that the USS Carolina should join the Constitution Class family. Until then...
------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

------------------
"And as we all know, a mesolytic quantumvector resonator is commonly
used to polarize isogravitic plasma-flux manifolds."

------------------
Me: "Why don't you live in Hong Kong?"
Rachel Roberts: "Hong Kong? Nah. Oh, but we can live in China! Yeah, China has great Chinese food!"

This is how I view the franchise.
There are four separate interpretations of the same universe. Each is accurate to its self, and all four series when examined as a body of work can be viewed as a source of inspiration, prophecy, and good storytelling with lessons to be learned. This is why I accept that in the TOS, the Third World War and the Eugenics War are the same and in DS9, the wars are separate. What the Star Trek universe is saying for me-humans will descend to the basest stage of existing and find a road that will lead to ascension. (And it's a good method of explaining contradictions aside. )

Now as to the questions,
when I present my evidence for the USS Carolina, I will use the relevant quote from the Making of Star Trek, for those members who don't have the book or feel disinclined to read the book, what starship class meant in the series TOS.
As for the chart, there is canonical evidence to support the contention that the chart is using a Z->A format. Star Trek computers are based in a real world situation. Formats of listing are used in computers.
As for the starships, the Starfleet is not composed only of starships. There are many other classes of ships, i.e. scout class for example.
As for the base, Starbase 11 may be a centrally located base or have the best repair facilities in the Federation at the time, or both. And as stated in "The Menagerie", the Federation is at peace. The 'brass' at Starfleet may have felt that the time is good for their capital ships to be repaired or refitted. As far as I can tell, the Starfleet had two or three starships on patrol or assigned missions in early 2267-the USS Republic, the USS Constellation, and possibly one other. Starship Enterprise may still have been on patrol or assigned missions if the ship had not been damaged in a ion storm.
As for the USS Intrepid, this ship is mentioned specifically by name.

When I write my entries, I have the expectation that the reader will take five minutes to read the full entry and have some background knownledge of the topic. From the responses I have gathered here and elsewhere, I feel that the readers are either inadvertently or deliberately ignorant of the first series and take perhaps a minute or two to read. This could be that the readers feel a greater affinity with the later series and see the first series as being less involving, a pale reflection of later Trek, or not having enough SFX. Whatever the reason, I know for a fact that the current management of the franchise and the supporters of that management feel that the first series isn't to the standards of the recent Treks and can be dismissed.

Why am I so passionate about a series that had a network run before my birth? This is the first Star Trek series that I knew, through my mother who liked the series since 1966, and which spoke for me personally. I have found the later series to be speaking in whispers or not at all to me. I turned to shows such as "West Wing" or "Frasier" or "MASH" which do speak to me. And of course back to the first series.

For talking to members of this forum or other forums, I find that there is a major generation gap between those who watched the first series or learned of the first series, such as myself, and those others who lived through TNG, DS9, and VOY. And I do agree that there are different camps in Star Trek and that the 'movement' is growing more fractured. Interestingly for me, I have heard that Star Trek and its movement reflects current society. This fracturation that is happening can be seen in our American society as well. Ergo, the statement is factual.

In the end, what I ask is this-if your interest is not the first series and you don't care to speculate or do interpretations based on evidence from this series, then please don't read or respond to my thread. I write my thread for those who like the original. Thank you.
------------------

takeoffs are optional; landings are mandatory

Also, you seem to have left out the quote of what determines a starship and makes USS Carolina Constitution Class. I still retain my claim that there is zero proof of the USS Carolina being Constitution class.

quote:

---

As for the USS Intrepid, this ship is mentioned specifically by name

---

Yeah, so, the ship's name was mentioned? How do you know the registry number is NCC-1831 though? How do you know that board is the entire list? You can't, therefore, assigning the USS Intrepid the number NCC-1831 merely because the ship was mentioned in the episode is foolish.

quote:

---

In the end, what I ask is this-if your interest is not the first series and you don't care to speculate or do interpretations based on evidence from this series, then please don't read or respond to my thread. I write my thread for those who like the original. Thank you.

---

A lot of people hate Voyager, but you still see them responding to threads about Voyager tech. We know the evidence from TOS, and we know what works better in the universe of Trek, IN OUR OPINION (remember, the Trek universe is what you make it!). To be so bold, it seems as if you take your ideas of the Trek universe as the absolute real facts, and cannot take any other possible explanations to your theories, but that's just me. So, in opposition to the comment in the quote, if you don't like how the modern series "oppress" the information of the original series, then don't post your theories on the board, because they ARE going to be people who offer their own solutions.

------------------
Me: "Why don't you live in Hong Kong?"
Rachel Roberts: "Hong Kong? Nah. Oh, but we can live in China! Yeah, China has great Chinese food!"

As far as I know, nothing in Trek can be taken at face value cause continuity is nonexistant.

------------------
"We set sail on this new sea because their is new knowledge to be gained and new rights to be won" John F Kennedy

members.aol.com/mfwan/index.htm

Do you have a legible picture of this chart?

------------------
"Second star to the right, and then straight on till morning."